Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 6:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

These movies are public domain in the United States.

The Brother From Another Planet was made from a grant by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, a non-profit organization.

Escape From Sobibor wasn't made in the U.S. or registered.

In Golan v. Gonzales and Golan v. Holder it was ruled that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests." The case is on appeal.

So, unless overturned on appeal, these movies will remain in the public domain in the United States.

Whether any of these films have copyright protection outside of the U.S., I do not know, but they are public domain inside the U.S.

This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-06 22:49:13

This post was modified by cooperway4 on 2011-01-07 02:33:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:50pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

No none of these films are PD in the US.

The only way for a film from 1963 to 1977 is for the film to not carry a vaild copyright notice ("copyright" or symbol, date and owner)

- Death Rides a Horse was originally released with a valid copyright notice. It was never PD. Even if it had become PD its copyright would have been restored under GATT/URAA (see below).

For 1978-March 1 1989 to be in the public domainis for it to have been first release in the US and published without a copyright notice and not registered within 5 years of such publication.

- Brother From Another Planet contains a valid notice (see attachement) there is nothing in copyright law that says a non-profit organisation cannot own copyright. Only federal government organisations are excluded from copyright provisions. The only way this film would be in the public domain is if the owner's expressly donated it to the public domain. Do you have any evidence that they have?

- Escape from Sobibor was a UK-Yugoslavia co-production first published in the USA. It was published with a valid copyright notice (see attachment). The film was unregistered but that does not put it in the public domain. Again the only way this film would be PD is if it was expressly released to the PD.

GATT/URAA Restorations.

Under the GATT/URAA legislation a foreign film had to "qualify" for copyright restoration. It had to have:

1 been under copyright in its source country at 1 Jan 1996
AND
2 lost its copyright in the US due to non-compliance with formailties (notice, renewal, etc)
AND
3 an author who was a citizen or domicile of the source country at time of publication
AND
4 not been first published in the US or published in the US within 30 days of its publication in the source country
(USC 17 104.A.6)

M
1. Copyright in Germany until 1 January 2047 (70 calendar years after death of last surviving author Fritz Lang)
2. Registered for US copyright but not renewed.
3. Fritz Lang, Thea Von Harbou, Seymour Nebenzal all German domicile at time of production.
4. German publication - 11 May 1931. US premiere - 31 March 1933
Meets ALL requirements - restored (copyright in the US until 1 January 2029).

Metropolis
1. Copyright in Germany until 1 January 2047 (70 calendar years after death of last surviving author Fritz Lang)
2. Registered for US copyright but not renewed.
3. Fritz Lang, Thea Von Harbou, Erich Pommer all German domicile at time of production.
4. German publication - 10 January 1927. US premiere - 6 March 1927
Meets ALL requirements - restored (copyright in the US until 1 January 2023).

Blue Angel
1. Copyright in Germany until 1 January 2048 (70 calendar years after death of last surviving author Carl Zuckmayer)
2. Registered for US copyright but not renewed.
3. Erich Pommer, Joseph von Sternberg, Carl Zuckmayer, Karl Vollmoeller, Robert Liebman, Gunther Rittau were all German domicile at time of production.
4. German publication - 1 April 1930. US premiere - 5 December 1930
Meets ALL requirements - restored (copyright in the US until 1 January 2026).

Death Rides A Horse
1. Italian term is 70 years from the death of the last surviving author (4 authors are still living - only the director has died in 2010). So the copyright endures for a undeterminable time in Italy.
2. Contains notice but not registered for full statutory protections.
3. Giulio Petroni, Luciano Vincenzoni, Alfonso Sansone, Ennio Morricone and Carlo Carlini were all Italian domicile at time of production.
4. Italian publication - 31 August 1967. US premiere - 25 June 1969.
Meets ALL requirements - restored (copyright in the US until 1 January 2065).

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-01-07 00:50:18

Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Brother_From_Another_Planet.jpg
Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Death_Rides_a_Horse_1.jpg
Attachment: Copyright_Notice_Escape_from_Sobibor.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 6:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

About the movie Metropolis:

The American copyright had lapsed in 1953, which eventually led to a proliferation of versions being released on video. Along with other foreign-made works, the film's U.S. copyright was restored in 1998,[18] but the constitutionality of this copyright extension was challenged in Golan v. Gonzales and as Golan v. Holder it was ruled that "In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. Removing works from the public domain violated Plaintiffs’ vested First Amendment interests."[19] The case is on appeal.

So that's settles it. Public domain in the U.S.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 7:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

That decision applies only to the state of Colorado and to people who were "reliance parties" under the Act.

(4) The term "reliance party" means any person who -
(A) with respect to a particular work, engages in acts,
before the source country of that work becomes an eligible
country, which would have violated section 106 if the restored work had been subject to copyright protection, and who, after the source country becomes an eligible country, continues to engage in such acts;
(B) before the source country of a particular work becomes an eligible country, makes or acquires 1 or more copies or
phonorecords of that work; or
(C) as the result of the sale or other disposition of a derivative work covered under subsection (d)(3), or significant assets of a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B), is asuccessor, assignee, or licensee of that person.


So basically, if you weren't a commercial user in 1995 (or earlier) of the previously public domain work who lives in Colorado, your first ammendment rights have not been found to be violated.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: guyzilla Date: Jan 6, 2011 9:16pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

And since I'm the one who put up both versions of METROPOLIS listed in the original post, if they're still copyright, then they have to go. I was given to believe they were PD, but if that isn't the case, then so be it. A good copy of this film is worth paying for, IMHO.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 5:05pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Every reference I could find by searching Brother From Another Planet Public Domain states that it was released to theaters without a valid copyright notice. Law at the time stated that the copyright notice must also contain the year in which the work was first published, and the name of the copyright owner, which may be the author, the legal owner of the work made for hire, or the person or entity to whom the copyright has been transferred. Since it was not a work for hire and since the author's name isn't own it, then the question remains whether John Sayles transferred copyright. If he did not, the restored versions made by Anarchist's Convention Films and UCLA Film and Television Archive are illegal.

And it has been believed since 1984 that this film is in the public domain and no one affiliated with the film has stated otherwise.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 7:42pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Under the law a film is a work-for-hire. The copyright notice in original copies of the film was the name of the production company (Copyright 1984 A Train Films Inc.) The copyright reverted from that production company to John Sayles in 1991 and has since been transfered to Anarchists Convention Inc. Not hard to look up on the copyright office website.

Transfer 1
The brother from another planet;
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D700
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D700 P1
Date of Execution: as of 1Jan91; date of cert.: 22Oct01
Title: The brother from another planet; motion picture.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: A Train films, Inc.
Party 2: John Sayles.

Names: Sayles, John
A Train films, Inc.


Transfer 2
The brother from another planet;
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D696
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D696 P1
Date of Execution: as of 20Mar96; date of cert.: 22Oct01
Title: The brother from another planet; motion picture.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: John Sayles.
Party 2: Anarchists Convention, Inc.

Names: Sayles, John
Anarchists Convention, Inc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 2:46am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Wait a minute. How again was it a work for hire if it was paid for by a grant from a non-profit?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:10am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

In the way that:

A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
17 USC §101

Considering the film makers set up a corporation to "own" their contributions to the film, I think we can consider it meeting the requirements of the second condition.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:25am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

And here's a "recordation" of one of those agreements

The brother who fell to earth : a.k.a. Brother from another planet /...
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V3475D695
Date of Recordation: 2001-10-26
Entire Copyright Document: V3475 D695 P1
Date of Execution: as of 25Aug83
Title: The brother who fell to earth : a.k.a. Brother from another planet / Screenplay.
Notes: Assignment.
Party 1: John Sayles.
Party 2: A Train Films, Inc.

Variant title: Brother from another planet
Names: Sayles, John
A Train Films, Inc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

The Brother who fell to earth;
Type of Work: Recorded Document
Document Number: V2037P799
Date of Recordation: 1983-12-27
Entire Copyright Document: V2037P799-802
Date of Execution: 16Sep83; 15Dec83
Title: The Brother who fell to earth; motion picture.
Notes: Security agreenment (motion picture and copyright)
Party 1: A-Train Films.
Party 2: Screen Actors Guild, Inc.

so shouldn't it have said copyright Screen Actors Guild, Inc.?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 4:21am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

No, since that document records that the production company has placed its completion security bond with SAG, I don't think so. That is not a transfer of copyright, hence the "Security Agreement" bit and not the "Assignment" bit as on the other one.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 7, 2011 3:47am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I mean I really, really find it hard to believe that people have been claiming this movie is public domain for over 25 years because of an invalid copyright notice without much objection, seeing as how the creator has been actively involved with restorations of it, if that wasn't the case.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 7, 2011 4:00am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I am really finding it hard to find evidence of widespread commercial use of this film without question. I can only find:

These VHS releases -
Key Video (1986, discontinued)
Fox Home Video (1990, discontinued)
UAV (1999, discontinued)

These DVD versions -
UAV (2001, Discontinued)
MGM Home Entertainment (2003, Authorised restoration. In print)
Guillotine Films (2003, Discontinued)
Digital 1 Stop (2004, Discontinued)
EastWest DVD (2007, Discontinued)

Amazon also has user uploaded "createspace" Made On Demand DVD-Rs available from "Synergy Entertainment" and "Artflix".

As most of these labels are still in business, one could easily assume that they had somehow learned of the copyright status of the film.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:14pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Treaties do not apply to U.S law. The measures have to be incorporated into U.S. law to become a law. Current law states that reinstatement of copyrights are only eligible to foreign films that have been restored and only to the restored versions (see 17 U.S.C. § 104A).

In another country that might not be the case, but it is in the United States. If you have found some other U.S. law that states otherwise, please provide a reference.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:23pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Elegibility for copyright restoration under the Uraguay Round Agreements Act has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not the version of the film itself is restored. Copyright does not vest seperately in different copies of a film. Copyright protects the filmic work in whichever version it is presented. You clearly do not understand how the law works.

The only references in the act to restoration are to the restoration of copyright. Copyright law has no interest in whether a copy of a film has been restored in the remastered and made look pretty sense. Even if no copies of a Gatt-restored film continued to exist the copyright was restored to protect the filmic work that would be contained in prints if they still existed.

You are on the wrong track if you are looking for a loophole.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 5:13pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Well, my advice to you is, if you don't like the way the law reads, you should lobby Congress to change it.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 7:27pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

My advice to you is to look at the definitions in the act:

(5) The term "restored copyright" means copyright in a restored work under this section.
(6) The term "restored work" means an original work of authorship that—

(A) is protected under subsection (a);
(B) is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection;
(C) is in the public domain in the United States due to—

(i) noncompliance with formalities imposed at any time by United States copyright law, including failure of renewal, lack of proper notice, or failure to comply with any manufacturing requirements;
(ii) lack of subject matter protection in the case of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972; or
(iii) lack of national eligibility;

(D) has at least one author or rightholder who was, at the time the work was created, a national or domiciliary of an eligible country, and if published, was first published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country; and
(E) if the source country for the work is an eligible country solely by virtue of its adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, is a sound recording.


Nothing about the work having to be "restored" in the repaired sense. All references to a "restored work" in the act refer to a work that qualifies to have its copyright restored under that section. Nothing more. Nothing less. The definition leaves no room to read anything else into the meaning of "restored work".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 5:33pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

17 U.S.C C92,App III, §102 (a)(1) United States law to prevail in conflict. - No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cooperway4 Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Also note that what the law states means you are correct for the restored versions of these films, but not for the unrestored versions. The versions of M, Metropolis, and Death Rides A Horse which are currently available on the Archives are unrestored versions.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Jan 6, 2011 4:32pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

Copyright applies to the filmic work as it appears in any version that has ever been made available. Copyright is an intelectual property right - the right to copy and exploit the physical property. Beyond that copyright has no interest in the physical property and does not vary from copy to copy.

If the film's copyright is restored (which means reinstated) by section 104 of the copyright Act then the copyright is restored to all copies of the film regardless of their quality or appearance.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bizzarobrian Date: Jan 26, 2012 7:58am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Please remove

I probably should have been more clear about why I was asking if Metropolis is in public domain since the subject of restored or unrestored film versions has come up.I know someone who is wanting to produce a model kit the Maria robot from the film.This kind of eliminates the discussion about restored & unrestored because a model kit would not show it in those 2 ways.